Gun Control Effort Had No Real Chance, Despite Pleas

WASHINGTON — President Obama, his face set with rage, stood in the Rose Garden surrounded by the families of Newtown and former Representative Gabrielle Giffords and asked how a measure to expand background checks for gun buyers — one supported by an overwhelming majority of Americans and a bipartisan majority of the Senate — had slipped away.

“The American people are trying to figure out,” Mr. Obama said, “how can something have 90 percent support and yet not happen?”

The answer: The measure never really had a chance.

In the nearly 10 years since the expiration of the assault weapons ban, even modest gun safety legislation has proved impossible to advance on Capitol Hill, where the momentum has been in the other direction, with lawmakers pushing various expansions of gun rights. The 68 votes last week to allow the debate on gun legislation to proceed was a mirage, a temporary triumph granted by senators willing to allow shooting victims and their survivors the vote they sought with absolutely no intention of supporting the final legislation and crossing the gun lobby or constituents who see gun rights as a defining issue.

While the opening vote provided advocates a glimmer of hope, the Newtown shootings, the tearful pleas of the parents of killed children and an aggressive push by the president could not turn the tide. They were no match for the reason Democrats have avoided gun control fights for years: a combination of the political anxiety of vulnerable Democrats from conservative states, deep-seated Republican resistance and the enduring clout of the National Rifle Association.

Republicans armed themselves with disputed talking points from the gun lobby about how a bill to expand background checks and outlaw a national gun registry was instead tantamount to a national gun registry. Turning the dispute from gun safety to gun rights, they took to the Senate floor to denounce the compromise, even arguing with its sponsors, Senator Joe Manchin III, Democrat of West Virginia, and Patrick Toomey, Republican of Pennsylvania, two National Rifle Association-blessed lawmakers who could not contain their umbrage. Mr. Obama on Wednesday accused the gun lobby and opposition lawmakers of willfully lying about the measure.

Yet unlike fiscal fights, in which there are clear partisan divides, just enough Democrats broke with their party to make a difference. While the measure enjoyed the support of a broad swath of Democrats, the four who voted against it were just enough to give Republicans the numbers for the bill’s demise, along with the political cover that it was a bipartisan decision.

“It’s dangerous to do any type of policy in an emotional moment,” said Senator Mark Begich of Alaska, a Democrat up for re-election next year who voted with three other Democrats and 41 Republicans against the compromise. “Because human emotions then drive the decision. Everyone’s all worked up. That’s not enough.”

In truth, the Democratic support for the compromise background check measure was slightly better than it might have been, with Senator Mary L. Landrieu, a Louisiana Democrat who faces re-election next year, joining in support of it along with some other red-state colleagues who were iffy.

But after the vote for the assault weapons ban cost Democrats seats in 1994, red-state Democrats have steered clear of gun safety measures, judging that the political fury of opponents would not be offset by support from those who favor tighter controls.

As for the N.R.A., while some saw the group’s leader, Wayne LaPierre, as meandering and on the defense after the Connecticut school shootings in December, seasoned lawmakers heard something far more telling: the group, which once supported new background checks, would no longer abide them. As a result, before a single hearing, bill or speech on the Senate floor, the legislation was in grave trouble. Then the Gun Owners of America chimed in, attacking Republican senators who showed any interest in compromise, arguing that a national gun registry would arise from the bill.

The Senate’s rapid dismissal of what just weeks ago seemed the most achievable goal — a measure to extend background checks to gun buyers not currently covered by the federal system — sent the question of how and if to regulate firearms back to the states, where new laws to both restrain and expand gun rights are now fermenting.

An error has occurred. Please try again later.

You are already subscribed to this email.

The vote was also a warning to lawmakers who have embarked on the precarious bipartisan search for new immigration laws; while the issues are politically distinct, the process of melding a host of values on an emotional issue can be easily derailed. And the White House, unable to deliver 60 votes for a centerpiece of its agenda with 55 Democrat-controlled seats, enters the immigration debate potentially weakened.

The defeat of the gun control effort will test the financial and political prowess of gun regulation advocates, notably Mayor Michael R. Bloomberg of New York, who have vowed to vigorously attack opponents of the background check measure in the next election cycle.

“We are equal opportunity when it comes to accountability,” said Mark Glaze, the director of Mayors Against Illegal Guns. “Republicans who voted no and Democrats who voted no will be treated exactly the same.”

Few Republicans celebrated their vote, even as Democrats fanned out across the Capitol to denounce the failure of the bill.

“Like most Americans, I want to keep firearms out of the hands of criminals and dangerous mentally ill people,” said Senator Bob Corker, Republican of Tennessee, in a statement. But the bipartisan plan, he said, “overly burdens a law-abiding citizen’s ability to exercise his or her Second Amendment rights and creates uncertainty about what is and is not a criminal offense.”

Democrats are counting on Mr. Obama’s rage to spread through the nation, and are hoping to eke out a political and eventually legislative victory.

“There are very few things that 90 percent of American agree on,” said Senator Harry Reid of Nevada, the majority leader, who vowed that the fight for the measure was not over.

“This is just the beginning,” said Mr. Reid, who invoked a procedural tactic that would enable him to bring up the bill again. “It is not the end.”

Mr. Glaze said his group’s campaign would start anew on Thursday. “I am not sure the American people have recently been treated to such a stark display of frank dishonesty,” he said. “You have grown men making statements that they plainly know to be false reading directly from talking points from a gun lobby that plainly knows them to be false. Helping speed that conversion along is our job, and we will begin that process tomorrow.”

But the fierce lobby against gun control believes the battle is over for now.

“We feel confident this will spell the end of gun control for the 113th Congress,” said Michael Hammond, the legislative counsel for Gun Owners of America, based in Virginia. “The gun registry defined the battle over universal background checks.”

Correction: April 18, 2013

Because of an editing error, an earlier version of this article misspelled the surname of a senator from Alaska. He is Senator Mark Begich, not Begichof.

A version of this news analysis appears in print on April 18, 2013, on Page A1 of the New York edition with the headline: Despite Tearful Pleas, No Real Chance. Order Reprints|Today's Paper|Subscribe